Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Tuesday 2nd February 2010, 21:22   #1
Michael Daniel Ho
Registered User
 
Michael Daniel Ho's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California, USA
Posts: 5,018
B I F with 1D MK4

Finally got around to taking the 1D MK4 out to test the AI Servo function on birds in flight. The bird sightings and lighting conditions were poor. Sky was heavily clouded over. All shots were handheld and in JPEG-L. Canon 400mm f/4 DO lens with 2X extender, ISO 1000.

First impression - Functions and features virtually indistinguishable from MK3. High ISO noise suppression and AF seems to be better than the MK3. Higher pixel quality and count are most welcome. My only complaint with the MK3 was its 'low' pixel count. Will be taking the camera down to Central America in a few days for an extended trial. If it proves my first impression is correct, I may not upgrade my 1Ds MK3 to the MK4 right away when it comes out because the 1D MK4 is my choice for the best value in professional DSLR. I may finally not have to travel with both the 1D and 1Ds bodies since the 14mm II and the 16-35mm II lenses will make the 1D MK4 a formidable landscape and travel camera as well. After all, I am tired of chasing the pixel increase game. Canon needs to come out with more upgrades on their L lenses instead of ever increasing pixel count. Visit my website to see more shots from camera.


Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	mallard2.jpg
Views:	470
Size:	37.6 KB
ID:	241077  Click image for larger version

Name:	goose.jpg
Views:	452
Size:	80.0 KB
ID:	241078  Click image for larger version

Name:	gull.jpg
Views:	309
Size:	41.4 KB
ID:	241079  Click image for larger version

Name:	coot3.jpg
Views:	349
Size:	56.2 KB
ID:	241080  Click image for larger version

Name:	mallard4.jpg
Views:	293
Size:	34.8 KB
ID:	241081  

Michael Daniel Ho is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2008 2009 2010 2011
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Tuesday 2nd February 2010, 21:56   #2
JohnZ
Registered User
 
JohnZ's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 8,611
These look a bit smoother than the 7D pics ?
JohnZ is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 3rd February 2010, 18:04   #3
Michael Daniel Ho
Registered User
 
Michael Daniel Ho's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California, USA
Posts: 5,018
Weather improved a little bit today. Took the MK4 out for another quick AI Servo test before I leave for Central America. Same lens but with 1.4X extender. Second impression - Same as first impression but with stronger conviction.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	kingbird.jpg
Views:	339
Size:	41.6 KB
ID:	241181  Click image for larger version

Name:	kingfisher.jpg
Views:	308
Size:	34.5 KB
ID:	241182  Click image for larger version

Name:	mallard.jpg
Views:	361
Size:	55.6 KB
ID:	241183  Click image for larger version

Name:	phoebe.jpg
Views:	242
Size:	39.7 KB
ID:	241184  Click image for larger version

Name:	kingbird1.jpg
Views:	352
Size:	45.5 KB
ID:	241185  

Michael Daniel Ho is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2008 2009 2010 2011
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Wednesday 3rd February 2010, 18:34   #4
GYRob
Registered User
 
GYRob's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 2,307
the second set are better .
I think the first are a little soft simply because of the 2x on the 400do ,its the same as the tcs are on the 500 f4isL 1,4 is great 2x not so great.
Taking that into account the mk4 is looking good with the combo.
Rob.
GYRob is online now  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Wednesday 3rd February 2010, 19:03   #5
Robert L Jarvis
Robert L Jarvis
 
Robert L Jarvis's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Burnley, Lancashire
Posts: 6,195
I think the second shots with the MK4 have the edge over the 7D in similar conditions.
Robert L Jarvis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 3rd February 2010, 19:47   #6
tdodd
Just call me Tim
 
tdodd's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert L Jarvis View Post
I think the second shots with the MK4 have the edge over the 7D in similar conditions.
Given the price difference one would hope so. In the UK the 1D4 costs well over 3X as much as the 7D - 4100 vs 1229. For the 7D to even get close is quite impressive, I think.

Heck, I could buy a 7D and a 1D3 (currently 2700), for less than the price of a 1D4. In fact I do own both and I paid less than 3370 for the pair, new. For 4100 the 1D4 ought to be truly sensational.
__________________
"Tim"

Last edited by tdodd : Wednesday 3rd February 2010 at 22:41.
tdodd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 3rd February 2010, 20:03   #7
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
 
Roy C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Barnstaple,North Devon,UK
Posts: 15,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert L Jarvis View Post
I think the second shots with the MK4 have the edge over the 7D in similar conditions.
I think it would be surprising if they were not Robert seeing the 1D4 is over 4k.
As Tim indicates, if the 7D can get even close it would be remarkable.
__________________
MY PHOTOSTREAM
500px Gallery
Roy C is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2007
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Wednesday 3rd February 2010, 22:04   #8
JohnZ
Registered User
 
JohnZ's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 8,611
As Rob suggested I think the second set is better.
JohnZ is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 3rd February 2010, 22:39   #9
Audubon
Registered User
 
Audubon's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: US
Posts: 708
I am not sure an expensive camera will always take a better photo. There are so many variables, especially the skill of the photographer. Look at the post ( B I F with 7D ) from the same guy who posted these 1D MK4 photos. They are so good, if he had told me they were taken with the 1D MK4, I'd believe it. I think a good photographer with a good camera usually takes better photos than an average photographer with the top-of-the-line equipment.
Audubon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 3rd February 2010, 22:51   #10
tdodd
Just call me Tim
 
tdodd's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audubon View Post
I think a good photographer with a good camera usually takes better photos than an average photographer with the top-of-the-line equipment.
I agree 100%, but the same photographer has started a 7D thread and a 1D4 thread, showing BIF examples taken with the same lens and 1.4X teleconverter. Therefore the operator variable has been eliminated, as has the glass. I haven't checked the EXIF but I'll assume the lighting was similar in quality/quantity.

For someone to say that the 1D4 photos have an "edge" is to damn the camera with faint praise. In fairness I wouldn't expect to see massive differences either, but I can't help feeling that the current price of the 1D4 is stretching it a bit. Should the 1D4 really retail at more than 50% above the price of the 1D3? Technology costs are supposed to come down over time. Cameras are little more than fancy computers these days, with a mirror and a prism. Why on earth are costs going up with each generation, rather than coming down? The motor industry doesn't add 50% to the sticker price each time a facelift or new mark gets released. Computers definitely aren't going up. Why the 1D4?

I'd be a lot more forgiving if the camera was 3,000, but 4,100? Come on!
__________________
"Tim"
tdodd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th February 2010, 10:37   #11
GYRob
Registered User
 
GYRob's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 2,307
looking at the ops 7d photos in the other thread i carnt see either set being better than the other from the mk4 ( second set ) and 7d.
In fact the 7d beats the first mk4 set imo.
So a 1000 camera 7d is very close or equal to a 4000 camera regarding AF but it should be way more better for that sort of money .
Rob.
GYRob is online now  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Thursday 4th February 2010, 13:06   #12
JohnZ
Registered User
 
JohnZ's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 8,611
?????
JohnZ is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th February 2010, 16:48   #13
Chris Upson
Registered User
 
Chris Upson's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Hadleigh, Suffolk
Posts: 3,823
Great set of flight shots from the MK1V,i do not think people should compare the mk1v and the 7d as they have different sensors,also the price is high due to the poor exchange rate.
__________________
More images at my website
http://chrisupson.zenfolio.com/
Chris Upson is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th February 2010, 16:53   #14
tdodd
Just call me Tim
 
tdodd's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Upson View Post
Great set of flight shots from the MK1V,i do not think people should compare the mk1v and the 7d as they have different sensors,also the price is high due to the poor exchange rate.
It's the same exchange rate that applies to the 1D3, 7D and every other Canon camera, Nikon too.

As for not being allowed to compare images from cameras with different sensors, well, I guess that means we can't compare any cameras at all then. Bang go the Canon vs Nikon discussions at a stroke. Of course you can compare them. They both produce images. If you can't tell which camera took the picture, comparing the final product - an image, not a pixel - then why do you need to spend 4100 for a 1D4 when a 7D will net you the same result for significantly less?

I'm not saying there is no place for the 1D4, because of course there is, but I find the spec quite underwhelming, compared to its predecessor (a bit like the 40D vs the 30D or the 50D vs the 40D - an upgrade, but not a big leap), and the price to be shocking. I can remember the price I paid for my 30D in 2006, my 40D in 2007, my 50D in 2008. Each time the new model came out there was little upshift in price. In fact I paid 800, 680 and 795 respectively. I simply cannot see the justification for the 1D4 to cost 50% more than the 1D3. The proper course of events should be that the 1D4 comes out at around the price of the 1D3, maybe a little more, and the 1D3 drops in price to clear old stock. Has Canon invented some new retail pricing paradigm? Are people really buying into that?
__________________
"Tim"

Last edited by tdodd : Thursday 4th February 2010 at 17:14.
tdodd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th February 2010, 17:17   #15
Marcus Conway - ebirder
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Highlands
Posts: 5,168
How much faster is the AF on the 1Dmkiv?
Is the 7D on a par with the 1Dmkiii?
Marcus Conway - ebirder is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2006
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Thursday 4th February 2010, 17:17   #16
JohnZ
Registered User
 
JohnZ's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 8,611
Because Tim, and it is only my opinion, the shots from the MK1V look better than from the 7D. I should add that having agreed with Rob initially he now seems to have changed his mind ?
JohnZ is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th February 2010, 17:40   #17
tdodd
Just call me Tim
 
tdodd's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 700
I personally have not studied the images sufficiently well to make a judgement, and in any event there are too many potential variables to make that judgement completely sound - the light, the processing, the amount of cropping, how much caffeine Michael had consumed on the day, etc. etc.. So I'm not making judgements on the images at all. I'm only responding to what other people have said.

I don't doubt for a second that the 1D4 is a better camera than the 1D3 and 7D, and we all know the argument that if a Rebel can produce an image as good as a 50D then why do you need a 50D, and so on. My only real beef is what seems to me to be outrageous pricing for what appears to me to be incremental advances in spec over the 1D3 and 7D. As soon as I saw the specs, and before knowing the price, I was underwhelmed. When I saw the price I lost interest altogether. I mean, what does that additional 1400 buy you compared to the 1D3?.......

- Essentially the same physical body, build, FPS, battery, ergonomics, so no change there;
- A pixel increase that places pixel density on an equal footing with a 40D, and in terms of %age increase is not dissimilar to the increase between the 40D and 50D, which didn't really add much to the price of that change;
- A new AF system, even though a working 1D3 was no slouch and generally well regarded, and good enough for professional work for the previous three years. We got a new AF system when the 30D was replaced by the 40D. No price increase there;
- Higher ISO - well who isn't doing that?
- A new LCD screen - about fricking time!
- Video, the same as everybody else, even the Rebels.

All in all I don't see a major compelling upgrade there, not for a 1400 premium over a 1D3 or 3000 over a 7D. It's just the expected technological advance that makes it worth bothering to release a new camera. Where is the "Wow!"? For an extra 1400 I want to see "Wow!". If I don't see it in the specs then I'd at least like to see it in the images. And if I don't want video or to shoot at over 6400 ISO then where is the compelling upgrade?

I'd love to see the results of a proper head to head between a 1D3, 1D4 and 7D, say at up to 3200 ISO, and one that properly tests the AF performance too. I doubt we'll have that luxury. :(
__________________
"Tim"

Last edited by tdodd : Thursday 4th February 2010 at 17:53.
tdodd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th February 2010, 18:19   #18
JohnZ
Registered User
 
JohnZ's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 8,611
So a 1000 camera 7d is very close or equal to a 4000 camera regarding AF but it should be way more better for that sort of money .

I only expressed my opinion Tim due to Rob`s sudden change of heart re : the 1DMkIV. Hence the row of question marks.
JohnZ is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th February 2010, 18:35   #19
tdodd
Just call me Tim
 
tdodd's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 700
No sweat. I'd be more interested in making a comparison if I had access to the original raw files. Without those I have no position to take - other than regarding the price. Anyway, I've said my piece. Time to let the thread continue, hopefully with more pictures and more chat about the camera's performance. I promise not to mention price again :)
__________________
"Tim"
tdodd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th February 2010, 19:59   #20
GYRob
Registered User
 
GYRob's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 2,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZ View Post
Because Tim, and it is only my opinion, the shots from the MK1V look better than from the 7D. I should add that having agreed with Rob initially he now seems to have changed his mind ?
I think you have miss understood me somewere along the way as my post is about 2 threads and 3 sets of shots .
I perhapes was not clear in how i put it .
Rob.
GYRob is online now  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Thursday 4th February 2010, 20:31   #21
GYRob
Registered User
 
GYRob's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 2,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Conway - ebirder View Post
How much faster is the AF on the 1Dmkiv?
Is the 7D on a par with the 1Dmkiii?
imo the 7d is a better birding camera overall than the mk3, the mk3 does feel as though its working faster and it might be, but the 7d does not lag behind when it comes to getting the shot .
iv yet to say when using the 7d that i had wished id had the mk3 with me instead.
Rob.
GYRob is online now  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Friday 5th February 2010, 09:28   #22
hollis_f
Registered User
 
hollis_f's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 1,576
I just want to thank Michael for posting the shots in both his threads. I've not had a close look at the images, but close enough to be able to say that, in the hands of an expert using a good lens, there is no huge difference between the final images one can get out of the two cameras.
__________________
Frank Hollis

Photography Gear - Website
hollis_f is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2007 2008 2009 2010
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Friday 5th February 2010, 13:46   #23
Michael Daniel Ho
Registered User
 
Michael Daniel Ho's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California, USA
Posts: 5,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdodd View Post
I personally have not studied the images sufficiently well to make a judgement, and in any event there are too many potential variables to make that judgement completely sound - the light, the processing, the amount of cropping, how much caffeine Michael had consumed on the day, etc. etc.. So I'm not making judgements on the images at all. I'm only responding to what other people have said.

I don't doubt for a second that the 1D4 is a better camera than the 1D3 and 7D, and we all know the argument that if a Rebel can produce an image as good as a 50D then why do you need a 50D, and so on. My only real beef is what seems to me to be outrageous pricing for what appears to me to be incremental advances in spec over the 1D3 and 7D. As soon as I saw the specs, and before knowing the price, I was underwhelmed. When I saw the price I lost interest altogether. I mean, what does that additional 1400 buy you compared to the 1D3?.......

- Essentially the same physical body, build, FPS, battery, ergonomics, so no change there;
- A pixel increase that places pixel density on an equal footing with a 40D, and in terms of %age increase is not dissimilar to the increase between the 40D and 50D, which didn't really add much to the price of that change;
- A new AF system, even though a working 1D3 was no slouch and generally well regarded, and good enough for professional work for the previous three years. We got a new AF system when the 30D was replaced by the 40D. No price increase there;
- Higher ISO - well who isn't doing that?
- A new LCD screen - about fricking time!
- Video, the same as everybody else, even the Rebels.

All in all I don't see a major compelling upgrade there, not for a 1400 premium over a 1D3 or 3000 over a 7D. It's just the expected technological advance that makes it worth bothering to release a new camera. Where is the "Wow!"? For an extra 1400 I want to see "Wow!". If I don't see it in the specs then I'd at least like to see it in the images. And if I don't want video or to shoot at over 6400 ISO then where is the compelling upgrade?

I'd love to see the results of a proper head to head between a 1D3, 1D4 and 7D, say at up to 3200 ISO, and one that properly tests the AF performance too. I doubt we'll have that luxury. :(
I am in Mexico now, heading south to Central America. WiFi coverage is spotty where I am. The discussion here on the 7D, 1D MK3 and MK4 is very interesting. Just to put things in perspective, I paid over $1000 for my first Canon 1D camera in 1989 (Ouch! First time I ever paid a 4 digit price for any camera). The D30 cost me over $3000 in 2000 (An even bigger Ouch but it was a revolutionary camera). The 7D with grip cost me $2050, 1D MK3 was $4,300 (2 1/2 years ago) and I paid $5000 for the MK4. Value is a subjective measure and we all make personal decisions on everyday purchases we buy and cameras are no different. There is really nothing revolutionary about the latest crop of cameras. Nothing like the D30 when it was introduced but incremental improvements are welcome and Canon cameras are getting better. I sold my MK3 for $2,650 and it returned almost 62% of my original cost. I expect the MK4 to do the same or better when I buy the MK5.

Next discussion will be on the merits of the 7D, MK3 and MK4 (head to head field comparison) and how they perform from my perspective as a wildlife photographer out in the field. Gotta go for now.
Michael Daniel Ho is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2008 2009 2010 2011
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Friday 5th February 2010, 13:50   #24
Marcus Conway - ebirder
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Highlands
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Daniel Ho View Post

Next discussion will be on the merits of the 7D, MK3 and MK4 (head to head field comparison) and how they perform from my perspective as a wildlife photographer out in the field. Gotta go for now.
Look forward to this - do you plan to shoot in RAW?
Marcus Conway - ebirder is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2006
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Friday 5th February 2010, 15:08   #25
tdodd
Just call me Tim
 
tdodd's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Daniel Ho View Post
Next discussion will be on the merits of the 7D, MK3 and MK4 (head to head field comparison) and how they perform from my perspective as a wildlife photographer out in the field. Gotta go for now.
That is something I would really like to see. Thanks for your contributions so far.
__________________
"Tim"
tdodd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Search the net with ask.com
Help support BirdForum
Ask.com and get

Page generated in 0.24943495 seconds with 34 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:42.